Lennart Nacke, PhD
@lennartnacke.com
🧠 Tenured brain, fresh daily takes. Maximum citations but sanity questionable. The prof your prof follows for daily research & AI takes. Quality wins. University Research Chair & Tenured Full Professor.
➜ www.lennartnacke.com
➜ www.lennartnacke.com
Pinned
Lennart Nacke, PhD
@lennartnacke.com
· Dec 6
Mini Masterclass: How to Write a CHI Paper
Join Professor Dr. Lennart Nacke for a FREE 30-minute masterclass about How to Write a CHI Paper. Become a smarter research author and master the basics of w...
www.youtube.com
The masterclass is this Saturday, Dec 7 at 11 AM Eastern.
Join here (bookmark): www.youtube.com/live/vpj2FT...
See you tomorrow.
Join here (bookmark): www.youtube.com/live/vpj2FT...
See you tomorrow.
Quit sending the same paper to multiple journals.
You're not persisting.
You're in denial.
Real persistence is taking the feedback seriously.
Revising substantively.
Addressing core criticisms even when they hurt.
My rule:
You're not persisting.
You're in denial.
Real persistence is taking the feedback seriously.
Revising substantively.
Addressing core criticisms even when they hurt.
My rule:
November 10, 2025 at 10:00 AM
Quit sending the same paper to multiple journals.
You're not persisting.
You're in denial.
Real persistence is taking the feedback seriously.
Revising substantively.
Addressing core criticisms even when they hurt.
My rule:
You're not persisting.
You're in denial.
Real persistence is taking the feedback seriously.
Revising substantively.
Addressing core criticisms even when they hurt.
My rule:
"I had to limit my scope due to time constraints."
→ Weak.
"The 6-month timeline required strategic focus on depth over breadth, which aligns with Smith et al.'s (2023) call for more concentrated phenomenological studies in our field."
→ Strong.
→ Weak.
"The 6-month timeline required strategic focus on depth over breadth, which aligns with Smith et al.'s (2023) call for more concentrated phenomenological studies in our field."
→ Strong.
November 9, 2025 at 1:15 PM
"I had to limit my scope due to time constraints."
→ Weak.
"The 6-month timeline required strategic focus on depth over breadth, which aligns with Smith et al.'s (2023) call for more concentrated phenomenological studies in our field."
→ Strong.
→ Weak.
"The 6-month timeline required strategic focus on depth over breadth, which aligns with Smith et al.'s (2023) call for more concentrated phenomenological studies in our field."
→ Strong.
During my PhD, I burnt out chasing perfect papers.
Until I realized habits scale harder than hours.
Hard work doesn’t finish a thesis early.
Smart structure does.
I built a framework that multiplied my focus overnight.
You don’t need more focus.
You need fewer decisions.
Here is what works:
Until I realized habits scale harder than hours.
Hard work doesn’t finish a thesis early.
Smart structure does.
I built a framework that multiplied my focus overnight.
You don’t need more focus.
You need fewer decisions.
Here is what works:
November 7, 2025 at 6:03 AM
During my PhD, I burnt out chasing perfect papers.
Until I realized habits scale harder than hours.
Hard work doesn’t finish a thesis early.
Smart structure does.
I built a framework that multiplied my focus overnight.
You don’t need more focus.
You need fewer decisions.
Here is what works:
Until I realized habits scale harder than hours.
Hard work doesn’t finish a thesis early.
Smart structure does.
I built a framework that multiplied my focus overnight.
You don’t need more focus.
You need fewer decisions.
Here is what works:
Never mirror R2’s hostility.
Your professionalism becomes a contrast that editors notice.
When Reviewer 2’s tone crosses into hostility, use this decoder:
Your professionalism becomes a contrast that editors notice.
When Reviewer 2’s tone crosses into hostility, use this decoder:
November 6, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Never mirror R2’s hostility.
Your professionalism becomes a contrast that editors notice.
When Reviewer 2’s tone crosses into hostility, use this decoder:
Your professionalism becomes a contrast that editors notice.
When Reviewer 2’s tone crosses into hostility, use this decoder:
How to calculate the ROI of your research work:
Expected Return = (Career Value × Probability of Success) ÷ Time Investment
I score career value from 1-10.
If Expected Return < Current Alternative → pivot or quit the thing.
Expected Return = (Career Value × Probability of Success) ÷ Time Investment
I score career value from 1-10.
If Expected Return < Current Alternative → pivot or quit the thing.
November 5, 2025 at 4:04 PM
How to calculate the ROI of your research work:
Expected Return = (Career Value × Probability of Success) ÷ Time Investment
I score career value from 1-10.
If Expected Return < Current Alternative → pivot or quit the thing.
Expected Return = (Career Value × Probability of Success) ÷ Time Investment
I score career value from 1-10.
If Expected Return < Current Alternative → pivot or quit the thing.
Turn So what? into a funded argument for your next research proposal.
Make yours explicit with this table:
1. Academic impact
2. Practical impact
3. Societal impact
Funding agencies think in impact tiers, not chapters.
Make yours explicit with this table:
1. Academic impact
2. Practical impact
3. Societal impact
Funding agencies think in impact tiers, not chapters.
November 5, 2025 at 5:57 AM
Turn So what? into a funded argument for your next research proposal.
Make yours explicit with this table:
1. Academic impact
2. Practical impact
3. Societal impact
Funding agencies think in impact tiers, not chapters.
Make yours explicit with this table:
1. Academic impact
2. Practical impact
3. Societal impact
Funding agencies think in impact tiers, not chapters.
Ask these before finalizing a research proposal:
1. Does the schedule show momentum (quick early wins)?
2. Can each milestone produce a tangible deliverable?
3. Would missing one still let the project continue?
4. Are dependency chains visible?
If not, redraft it. Reviewers love momentum arcs.
1. Does the schedule show momentum (quick early wins)?
2. Can each milestone produce a tangible deliverable?
3. Would missing one still let the project continue?
4. Are dependency chains visible?
If not, redraft it. Reviewers love momentum arcs.
November 5, 2025 at 4:01 AM
Ask these before finalizing a research proposal:
1. Does the schedule show momentum (quick early wins)?
2. Can each milestone produce a tangible deliverable?
3. Would missing one still let the project continue?
4. Are dependency chains visible?
If not, redraft it. Reviewers love momentum arcs.
1. Does the schedule show momentum (quick early wins)?
2. Can each milestone produce a tangible deliverable?
3. Would missing one still let the project continue?
4. Are dependency chains visible?
If not, redraft it. Reviewers love momentum arcs.
The morning after rejection, you have 2 choices:
1. Spiral into "I'm not cut out for this" narratives.
2. Ask: "What if this rejection is just what the paper needed?"
I've lived both responses.
The spiral validates but stalls.
The reframe feels fake but moves you forward.
Here's the truth:
1. Spiral into "I'm not cut out for this" narratives.
2. Ask: "What if this rejection is just what the paper needed?"
I've lived both responses.
The spiral validates but stalls.
The reframe feels fake but moves you forward.
Here's the truth:
November 4, 2025 at 4:00 PM
The morning after rejection, you have 2 choices:
1. Spiral into "I'm not cut out for this" narratives.
2. Ask: "What if this rejection is just what the paper needed?"
I've lived both responses.
The spiral validates but stalls.
The reframe feels fake but moves you forward.
Here's the truth:
1. Spiral into "I'm not cut out for this" narratives.
2. Ask: "What if this rejection is just what the paper needed?"
I've lived both responses.
The spiral validates but stalls.
The reframe feels fake but moves you forward.
Here's the truth:
Research papers don't have a clarity problem.
They have a skimming problem.
After reviewing 200+ paper submissions,
I stopped trusting linear writing.
Reviewers don't read linearly.
They skim in 4 predictable jumps.
Format accordingly.
They have a skimming problem.
After reviewing 200+ paper submissions,
I stopped trusting linear writing.
Reviewers don't read linearly.
They skim in 4 predictable jumps.
Format accordingly.
November 4, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Research papers don't have a clarity problem.
They have a skimming problem.
After reviewing 200+ paper submissions,
I stopped trusting linear writing.
Reviewers don't read linearly.
They skim in 4 predictable jumps.
Format accordingly.
They have a skimming problem.
After reviewing 200+ paper submissions,
I stopped trusting linear writing.
Reviewers don't read linearly.
They skim in 4 predictable jumps.
Format accordingly.
When evaluating a literature review:
Be consistent between how studies report and how you judge them.
Reporting vs Appraisal Quick Reference Below
Be consistent between how studies report and how you judge them.
Reporting vs Appraisal Quick Reference Below
November 4, 2025 at 6:03 AM
When evaluating a literature review:
Be consistent between how studies report and how you judge them.
Reporting vs Appraisal Quick Reference Below
Be consistent between how studies report and how you judge them.
Reporting vs Appraisal Quick Reference Below
After reviewing almost 100 papers for CHI,
I've noticed awesome research get killed on page 1.
Your paper has 8,000+ words.
Reviewers spend < 3 minutes to form an impression.
If they can't see why your work matters,
how you proved it, and what changes.
They reject it.
I've noticed awesome research get killed on page 1.
Your paper has 8,000+ words.
Reviewers spend < 3 minutes to form an impression.
If they can't see why your work matters,
how you proved it, and what changes.
They reject it.
November 3, 2025 at 10:02 PM
After reviewing almost 100 papers for CHI,
I've noticed awesome research get killed on page 1.
Your paper has 8,000+ words.
Reviewers spend < 3 minutes to form an impression.
If they can't see why your work matters,
how you proved it, and what changes.
They reject it.
I've noticed awesome research get killed on page 1.
Your paper has 8,000+ words.
Reviewers spend < 3 minutes to form an impression.
If they can't see why your work matters,
how you proved it, and what changes.
They reject it.
🎓 GRADE Mini-Guide (for evidence tables):
1. Start high (RCT) or low (observational).
2. Downgrade for bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias.
3. Upgrade for large effects, dose-response, confounding control.
4. Output: High / Moderate / Low / Very Low certainty.
1. Start high (RCT) or low (observational).
2. Downgrade for bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias.
3. Upgrade for large effects, dose-response, confounding control.
4. Output: High / Moderate / Low / Very Low certainty.
November 3, 2025 at 6:04 PM
🎓 GRADE Mini-Guide (for evidence tables):
1. Start high (RCT) or low (observational).
2. Downgrade for bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias.
3. Upgrade for large effects, dose-response, confounding control.
4. Output: High / Moderate / Low / Very Low certainty.
1. Start high (RCT) or low (observational).
2. Downgrade for bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias.
3. Upgrade for large effects, dose-response, confounding control.
4. Output: High / Moderate / Low / Very Low certainty.
Real talk:
Your examiners have already decided if you're passing before you walk in.
The viva isn't about changing their minds.
It just needs to confirm their decision.
Your examiners have already decided if you're passing before you walk in.
The viva isn't about changing their minds.
It just needs to confirm their decision.
November 3, 2025 at 12:15 PM
Real talk:
Your examiners have already decided if you're passing before you walk in.
The viva isn't about changing their minds.
It just needs to confirm their decision.
Your examiners have already decided if you're passing before you walk in.
The viva isn't about changing their minds.
It just needs to confirm their decision.
To write persuasively without exaggeration in papers, balance:
1. Evidence (data transparency)
2. Structure (logical tension-resolution)
3. Voice (measured confidence)
Lose one, and your academic story turns into sales copy.
1. Evidence (data transparency)
2. Structure (logical tension-resolution)
3. Voice (measured confidence)
Lose one, and your academic story turns into sales copy.
November 3, 2025 at 6:00 AM
To write persuasively without exaggeration in papers, balance:
1. Evidence (data transparency)
2. Structure (logical tension-resolution)
3. Voice (measured confidence)
Lose one, and your academic story turns into sales copy.
1. Evidence (data transparency)
2. Structure (logical tension-resolution)
3. Voice (measured confidence)
Lose one, and your academic story turns into sales copy.
Pick one of your top 5 papers.
Follow the citation chain:
• Who did they cite?
• Who cited them?
This creates an invisible web of the conversation you’re joining.
Summarize in one paragraph.
The seed of your literature review.
Follow the citation chain:
• Who did they cite?
• Who cited them?
This creates an invisible web of the conversation you’re joining.
Summarize in one paragraph.
The seed of your literature review.
November 2, 2025 at 7:04 PM
Pick one of your top 5 papers.
Follow the citation chain:
• Who did they cite?
• Who cited them?
This creates an invisible web of the conversation you’re joining.
Summarize in one paragraph.
The seed of your literature review.
Follow the citation chain:
• Who did they cite?
• Who cited them?
This creates an invisible web of the conversation you’re joining.
Summarize in one paragraph.
The seed of your literature review.
I used to believe significant meant true.
Then I reviewed 1000+ studies.
20 years in research taught me one thing:
Data rarely tells the full story.
But the science isn’t broken.
Our interpretation of it is.
Most researchers trust weak evidence.
Here’s how to never fall into that trap:
Then I reviewed 1000+ studies.
20 years in research taught me one thing:
Data rarely tells the full story.
But the science isn’t broken.
Our interpretation of it is.
Most researchers trust weak evidence.
Here’s how to never fall into that trap:
November 2, 2025 at 12:11 PM
I used to believe significant meant true.
Then I reviewed 1000+ studies.
20 years in research taught me one thing:
Data rarely tells the full story.
But the science isn’t broken.
Our interpretation of it is.
Most researchers trust weak evidence.
Here’s how to never fall into that trap:
Then I reviewed 1000+ studies.
20 years in research taught me one thing:
Data rarely tells the full story.
But the science isn’t broken.
Our interpretation of it is.
Most researchers trust weak evidence.
Here’s how to never fall into that trap:
How many references should I actually cite?
Here's the citation-context ratio test.
For every 100 words, you should ideally have:
1-2 citations in theory sections,
0-1 in results,
1-2 in discussion,
3-4 in related work/literature.
If your ratios are way higher, you’re listing not synthesizing.
Here's the citation-context ratio test.
For every 100 words, you should ideally have:
1-2 citations in theory sections,
0-1 in results,
1-2 in discussion,
3-4 in related work/literature.
If your ratios are way higher, you’re listing not synthesizing.
November 2, 2025 at 5:02 AM
How many references should I actually cite?
Here's the citation-context ratio test.
For every 100 words, you should ideally have:
1-2 citations in theory sections,
0-1 in results,
1-2 in discussion,
3-4 in related work/literature.
If your ratios are way higher, you’re listing not synthesizing.
Here's the citation-context ratio test.
For every 100 words, you should ideally have:
1-2 citations in theory sections,
0-1 in results,
1-2 in discussion,
3-4 in related work/literature.
If your ratios are way higher, you’re listing not synthesizing.
Tool stack for smarter referencing
Zotero: automate formatting & tagging.
Litmaps: visualize citation networks.
Consensus: find evidence summaries quick.
Google Scholar Alerts: track when your key authors publish.
The best tool is the one you already use.
Zotero: automate formatting & tagging.
Litmaps: visualize citation networks.
Consensus: find evidence summaries quick.
Google Scholar Alerts: track when your key authors publish.
The best tool is the one you already use.
November 1, 2025 at 6:01 PM
Tool stack for smarter referencing
Zotero: automate formatting & tagging.
Litmaps: visualize citation networks.
Consensus: find evidence summaries quick.
Google Scholar Alerts: track when your key authors publish.
The best tool is the one you already use.
Zotero: automate formatting & tagging.
Litmaps: visualize citation networks.
Consensus: find evidence summaries quick.
Google Scholar Alerts: track when your key authors publish.
The best tool is the one you already use.
Harvard just admitted their grading system is broken.
About 60% of grades are now As.
Two decades ago? Only 25%.
Faculty say grades don't match work quality anymore.
Sound familiar? Your PhD program faces the same crisis.
Grade inflation is everywhere.
About 60% of grades are now As.
Two decades ago? Only 25%.
Faculty say grades don't match work quality anymore.
Sound familiar? Your PhD program faces the same crisis.
Grade inflation is everywhere.
November 1, 2025 at 11:12 AM
Harvard just admitted their grading system is broken.
About 60% of grades are now As.
Two decades ago? Only 25%.
Faculty say grades don't match work quality anymore.
Sound familiar? Your PhD program faces the same crisis.
Grade inflation is everywhere.
About 60% of grades are now As.
Two decades ago? Only 25%.
Faculty say grades don't match work quality anymore.
Sound familiar? Your PhD program faces the same crisis.
Grade inflation is everywhere.
Every paper reference should tick at least one:
✔︎ Credit: to acknowledge origin.
✔︎ Confirm: to support argument.
✔︎ Contrast: to align your positioning.
✔︎ Connect: to show academic lineage.
✔︎ Contextualize: to place your work in the field.
If it doesn’t fit one of the five Cs, cut it.
✔︎ Credit: to acknowledge origin.
✔︎ Confirm: to support argument.
✔︎ Contrast: to align your positioning.
✔︎ Connect: to show academic lineage.
✔︎ Contextualize: to place your work in the field.
If it doesn’t fit one of the five Cs, cut it.
November 1, 2025 at 5:02 AM
Every paper reference should tick at least one:
✔︎ Credit: to acknowledge origin.
✔︎ Confirm: to support argument.
✔︎ Contrast: to align your positioning.
✔︎ Connect: to show academic lineage.
✔︎ Contextualize: to place your work in the field.
If it doesn’t fit one of the five Cs, cut it.
✔︎ Credit: to acknowledge origin.
✔︎ Confirm: to support argument.
✔︎ Contrast: to align your positioning.
✔︎ Connect: to show academic lineage.
✔︎ Contextualize: to place your work in the field.
If it doesn’t fit one of the five Cs, cut it.
Professors call it progress. Their students call it burnout.
Academia rewards exhaustion.
Then wonders why no one’s thriving.
Papers, deadlines, emails. It's killing your potential.
Most professors don’t see it.
Academia rewards exhaustion.
Then wonders why no one’s thriving.
Papers, deadlines, emails. It's killing your potential.
Most professors don’t see it.
October 31, 2025 at 4:57 PM
Professors call it progress. Their students call it burnout.
Academia rewards exhaustion.
Then wonders why no one’s thriving.
Papers, deadlines, emails. It's killing your potential.
Most professors don’t see it.
Academia rewards exhaustion.
Then wonders why no one’s thriving.
Papers, deadlines, emails. It's killing your potential.
Most professors don’t see it.
Should you quit your PhD?
Here's a quick test (and food for thought).
If >70% of your reasons align with the strategic column,
you’re not giving up on your PhD, you’re optimizing your life.
Here's a quick test (and food for thought).
If >70% of your reasons align with the strategic column,
you’re not giving up on your PhD, you’re optimizing your life.
October 31, 2025 at 11:15 AM
Should you quit your PhD?
Here's a quick test (and food for thought).
If >70% of your reasons align with the strategic column,
you’re not giving up on your PhD, you’re optimizing your life.
Here's a quick test (and food for thought).
If >70% of your reasons align with the strategic column,
you’re not giving up on your PhD, you’re optimizing your life.
I became obsessed with perfect AI prompts.
And forgot progress comes from imperfect testing.
AI actually slowed me down in five specific ways.
Each one cost me hours per week.
But it's not all bad. Often I got better quality output.
It's just not the time saver for everything, everywhere.
And forgot progress comes from imperfect testing.
AI actually slowed me down in five specific ways.
Each one cost me hours per week.
But it's not all bad. Often I got better quality output.
It's just not the time saver for everything, everywhere.
October 31, 2025 at 5:00 AM
I became obsessed with perfect AI prompts.
And forgot progress comes from imperfect testing.
AI actually slowed me down in five specific ways.
Each one cost me hours per week.
But it's not all bad. Often I got better quality output.
It's just not the time saver for everything, everywhere.
And forgot progress comes from imperfect testing.
AI actually slowed me down in five specific ways.
Each one cost me hours per week.
But it's not all bad. Often I got better quality output.
It's just not the time saver for everything, everywhere.
Rejected within 24 hours.
That’s how my academic journey really started.
My writing has never been the same since.
Here’s what I learned from 300+ submissions:
Too many papers get rejected instantly.
That’s how my academic journey really started.
My writing has never been the same since.
Here’s what I learned from 300+ submissions:
Too many papers get rejected instantly.
October 30, 2025 at 11:11 AM
Rejected within 24 hours.
That’s how my academic journey really started.
My writing has never been the same since.
Here’s what I learned from 300+ submissions:
Too many papers get rejected instantly.
That’s how my academic journey really started.
My writing has never been the same since.
Here’s what I learned from 300+ submissions:
Too many papers get rejected instantly.
How to write like an academic storyteller
(without losing your rigour)
Intro:
Despite [progress], [core problem] persists. This study addresses [specific gap].
Lit Review:
Prior work on [topic] has shown [trend], but failed to [key omission].
Methods:
To investigate, we [brief design].
(without losing your rigour)
Intro:
Despite [progress], [core problem] persists. This study addresses [specific gap].
Lit Review:
Prior work on [topic] has shown [trend], but failed to [key omission].
Methods:
To investigate, we [brief design].
October 30, 2025 at 8:59 AM
How to write like an academic storyteller
(without losing your rigour)
Intro:
Despite [progress], [core problem] persists. This study addresses [specific gap].
Lit Review:
Prior work on [topic] has shown [trend], but failed to [key omission].
Methods:
To investigate, we [brief design].
(without losing your rigour)
Intro:
Despite [progress], [core problem] persists. This study addresses [specific gap].
Lit Review:
Prior work on [topic] has shown [trend], but failed to [key omission].
Methods:
To investigate, we [brief design].